He pointed out concerns regarding access to the parking garages, 8118 Maryland and Shaw Park Plaza, which would be impacted by the development plan and its heightened density, resulting in increased conflicts and confusion for drivers. He added that an impact of a median on Forsyth as part of the development plan will disproportionately impact motorists traveling to Shaw Park Plaza and places increased emphasis on

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 9 of 12 the center access drive on Forsyth Boulevard, which has deficient geometrics that would preclude some access to Shaw Park Plaza as well as several other factors (sight distance, stacking, etc.).

Mayor Sanger commented that he doesn’t think that they have ever seen such a diametrically opposed report from two professional traffic engineers on any project that they have ever looked at. Although, Mr. Shatto is saying that he is in agreement with methodology the conclusions that Lochmiller Group has come to and the conclusions that CBB came to are completely different which leads to a lot of confusion our part.

Bruce Tuesley, Bentall Kennedy and Associates, represent the ownership of Shaw Park Plaza, stated that they are trying to preserve their rights within the building, reserve their rights to the parking so that they have adequate parking to remain a competitive building in the neighborhood. Right now there is adequate parking and does not believe there will be adequate parking once the building is built. He said that parking is getting scarce, office buildings are becoming denser, and more people in the same amount of square footage and the requirements for parking grow as well. They are simply trying to be protective of their rights to park in the shared garage and they are not an opponent to development, but quite the opposite, they are also a developer and represent a lot of property across the United States. They applaud the efforts that have gone into this building, it’s a beautiful looking building and they welcome it into the neighborhood, but they think the scale (the size), the parking issues it will cause are a little more than they would like to see in the neighborhood.

Lee Cannon, Principle of Traffic Engineer, CBB, addressed the Board stating that as a matter of clarification CBB completed their work for the City directly as an on-call service under the direction of the Public Works and Planning Departments. He said that with respect to the traffic impact study and the parking study that Mr. Shatto said that he agreed with the methodology and generally with the calculations. Mr. Cannon addressed the basics of the traffic impact study that was performed by CBB noting overall that they did not make any recommendations for improvement to accommodate this particular building site. He pointed out that one issue that they did take exception to was the access point (south driveway shown on presentation). He did point out that they performed their traffic counts when school was in session and during the peak hours. While working with the City staff CBB’s recommendation was to eliminate the left turn into the specific location and City staff felt that it would be prudent to consider the issues related to left turns out at that location as well.

Mr. Cannon then responded to the information presented by the opposition. He stated that there will be additional traffic with the new (bigger) building, but does not see any difference in impacts or mitigation needs with a slightly bigger building versus the originally (1982) approved square footage size. As for parking, their scope focused on how much parking is needed if the proposed building is built. With the existing parking (no matter who owns it, who it’s allocated to, and where it’s located) the parking stalls in the block are currently 63% occupied. Currently, there are two facilities that are underutilized. The difference between how much parking is needed to park cars, which is what CBB looked at, versus how much parking do we need to address a “sheet of paper” on an entitlement, a promise is very different and that is the main difference between the two studies. It is his understanding that the Shaw Park Plaza Building is about 94% occupancy, a 6% vacancy rate. He said that with talking to area real estate professionals the average rate in the St. Louis market is 10% for Class A space and that everyone would be happy at 90% occupancy. The opposition indicated that there are 422 spaces that they are entitled to and that if Apogee uses them they cannot use them, but at 94% occupancy to date they don’t use the 422 spaces. Looking at marked supply versus actual uses and at 94% the Shaw Park Plaza building does not need those spaces to park. It would be counterintuitive and go against the shared parking idea for the block if the City required any developer to build additional parking to meet some code requirements, some artificial number that would self-park the facility. CBB’s study goes through the numbers and is very straightforward, saying that if Apogee builds out at the proposed square footage there will be adequate parking and still a 10% surplus of the spaces that will be empty in the block.

In response to Mayor Sanger’s question, Mr. Cannon stated that although this would have an impact on the Desco building and they don’t know what is being proposed for that building. Desco has a right to build additional spaces on top of the existing garage and a right to expand the facility.

Mayor Sanger clarified that it would be about 225 spaces if there is a Desco rebuild on that property.

Desco has a right to build additional spaces on top of the existing garage and a right to expand the facility. Mayor Sanger clarified that it would be about 225 spaces if there is a Desco rebuild on that property.

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 10 of 12

In response to Alderman Boulton’s question, City Attorney O’Keefe stated that he has not seen the easement and cannot respond to that question.

City Attorney O’Keefe addressed Mr. Cannon stating that he understood in his analysis that they looked at the question of the additional square footage in Site 5 as not meeting substantial feasibly the total square footage foreseen for the entire Special Development District. Mr. Cannon stated that he referenced the square footage of the building the differential between what was previously approved and what is being proposed as not having an impact to his traffic operations analysis – any more or less mitigation requirements if a bigger building is built (169,000 vs. 238,000) although he would still recommend the median.

In response to Alderman Boulton’s question, Mr. Cannon clarified that if they had to take 422 unused spaces in the garage and say that they cannot be used by anybody else, than it would make a difference.

Mayor Sanger asked regarding the issue in terms of access to the drive-in, pass through for the bank, passing in front of entrance and exits in front of the gates and if the building was only 169,000 square feet what affect would it have on internal traffic flow? If the footprint was smaller (internally) would it change flow? Mr. Cannon stated that it would be very little if any, currently there are three to four vehicles “cued” during peak times which is not a lot of traffic. He does not feel the flow would change on the Shaw Park side because there is a wide driveway between the Shaw Park Plaza and the site, but might get a different flow on the north/west side of the site because that driveway is only a two lane driveway.

In response to Alderman Garnholz’s question, Mr. Cannon demonstrated (presentation) the traffic flow between the Merrill Lynch and proposed site the morning peak hour serves a total of 80 cars an hour (70 left turns in and 10 right turns), less than 1.5 cars per minute.

Mayor Sanger stated that he is struggling with several issues; (1) the Desco Group building; (2) the loading docks; (3) easements; (4) FAR; and (5) art versus landscaping. He is recommending to the Board to table this ordinance until the July 12 BOA meeting in order to gather additional information.

Alderman Garnholz moved to table Bill No. 6561 for the July 12, 2016 Board meeting. Alderman Berger seconded.

The motion passed 5 – ayes to 2 – nays (Winings and Boulton).

Mr. Novelly expressed his concerns with the timeliness of delaying the Board decision.

City Attorney O’Keefe requested from the developer copies of the legal pages that were shown in the presentation to be submitted to the City Clerk.

Mayor Sanger called at 10:00 p.m. for a five minute break.

Mayor Sanger called the meeting back to order at 10:05 p.m.

TO CONSIDER APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH CENTENE CORPORATION

City Manager Owens reported that Centene Center II, LLC has advised the City of its desire to redevelop property generally located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Forsyth Boulevard and Hanley Road and on Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Plaza. They have also asked that the City consider the potential use of an economic development public-private partnership to facilitate a superior development. The City desires that Centene should bear the costs borne by the City to pay some of the City’s out-of-pocket costs in connection with the City’s consideration of Centene’s plans and exploring, evaluating, engaging the public, negotiating and potentially establishing a redevelopment area and appropriate public-private cooperation arrangements. The developer has agreed to reimburse the City for such professional services. If the initial funds are depleted the developer must deposit additional funds with the City. This does not approve any

Alderman Boulton reported that the History Center is now open at The Center of Clayton. Alderman Berger reported that the Wine and Music Event was a hugely successful event, very well done.

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 12 of 12 Alderman Lintz also expressed kudos to the Planning Staff on the tree ordinance.

Alderman Berkowitz reported that the Picnic in the Park was also a hugely successful event, very well done. he also added that the Heritage Center grand opening was very well attended.

Mayor Sanger reported that he met with the new mayor of Richmond Heights, Mayor Thomson and he is anxious to continue working with Clayton.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

____________________________

Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________ City Clerk